Most of the greatest players are coming from the open era. Take top 50 players in the open-era and compare to the top 50 in the pre-open, experts picked most from the open-era. I don't care if the list is about the greatest clay courters, greatest grass players or greatest hard court players, the vast majority of the open-era players are at the top.

Most of the greatest players are coming from the open era. Take top 50 players in the open-era and compare to the top 50 in the pre-open, experts picked most from the open-era. I don't care if the list is about the greatest clay courters, greatest grass players or greatest hard court players, the vast majority of the open-era players are at the top.

MIGHTY FEDERER, are you dreaming? Your dreams are nightmares for true experts...

No no no, the tennis talent pool peaked in the 1930's, the greatest of the modern era is substantially bellow them //sarcasm.

I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.

I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.

By 30's I meant players born in the 30's...Maybe if Nadal was playing in the 50's he would have only one, I doubt it. However likewise if those players were playing in the 00's Nadal would be unlikely to lose more than tiebreak set.

Nadal is one of the greatest movers the game has ever seen. He has surprisingly good touch when he wants to and alot of power. Not to mention his stamina and mental game. He could be champion in any time period.

[quote=Dan Lobb;7289035]I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.[/QUOTE.

I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.[/QUOTE.

Dan, You forgot Gonzalez and Sedgman.

Yes, they both had some good results on clay, but not the French title.

Most of the greatest players are coming from the open era. Take top 50 players in the open-era and compare to the top 50 in the pre-open, experts picked most from the open-era. I don't care if the list is about the greatest clay courters, greatest grass players or greatest hard court players, the vast majority of the open-era players are at the top.

I am not so sure, even if you consider Laver and Rosewall open era players still many will consider Wilding,Tilden,Cochet,Lacoste,Budge,Perry,Crawford ,Vines,Kramer,Parker,Sedgman,Trabert,Hoad and Gonzales being as good if not better than most of the open players if equal equipment and court conditions are the same
Gonzales,Hoad and Sedgie for instance were much stronger than 90% open era top guys

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

I think that you mean the 1950's, when the clay field was the toughest ever, much tougher than today.
Just think:
Segura, Patty, Drobny, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Davidson, Pietrangeli to name only the greatest.
Nadal would have won only one French title at most in the 1950's. If VERY lucky, two.
No sarcasm.

Without a doubt the most disrespectful post to a great player that you can make. Nadal? Have you seen how he moves on that surface? Take away racket technology you still have a relentless gladiator getting every ball back. Not one of them players you mentioned, of those I have seen footage, is anywhere near the athlete Nadal is. You have zero credibility at this point, zero.

I am starting to think that the Hoad mystique is a very curious phenomenon, almost entirely based on hearsay. From what Iíve seen, there are some comments made by Gonzalez and Laver where they praise Hoad many many years after the facts. These comments are repeated in every single description of Hoad, just like certain prayers are repeated in every religious ceremony. The fact that they were made at a time when Gonzalez and Laverís excellent record against Hoad was a well known thing of the distant past may suggest that these comments are not entirely devoid of the con. Yeah, he was the best of the best, and we beat him repeatedly and with gusto. Think about that.

Hoadís glory in his best couple of years is sung by the strange method of ignoring the abundant and not so glorious losses in that very same period. As far as I know, no other player enjoys such wonderful breaks. Itís as if the record, in the case of Hoad, were completely irrelevant. Visual evidence is also irrelevant because largely unavailable. All that remains is the hearsay. His comparison with other players, for example Federer, is made by selecting instances of Hoadís supposedly god-like level (as described by hearsay) and comparing them NOT with instances of Federer's similar level, which are widely available for viewing, but with his average level where defects may be spotted.

There is something evangelical about the Lobb mission. His faith is unwavering. He wants to spread the Word on Hoad. But at least the Christian apostles had had direct contact with the Master, they saw Him in His daily activities and miracles, and wrote detailed reports of them in the Gospels. Lobbís gospel is some interviews where Gonzalez and Laver were being gracious and perhaps a bit self-serving. Itís as if a Christian gospel had developed from some interview with Mathew and Mark, where they would say things like, Oh, yeah, Christ could on occasion perform the most spectacular miracles (but you know we beat him regularly in most miracle competitions throughout Galilee).

I am starting to think that the Hoad mystique is a very curious phenomenon, almost entirely based on hearsay. From what Iíve seen, there are some comments made by Gonzalez and Laver where they praise Hoad many many years after the facts. These comments are repeated in every single description of Hoad, just like certain prayers are repeated in every religious ceremony. The fact that they were made at a time when Gonzalez and Laverís excellent record against Hoad was a well known thing of the distant past may suggest that these comments are not entirely devoid of the con. Yeah, he was the best of the best, and we beat him repeatedly and with gusto. Think about that.

Hoadís glory in his best couple of years is sung by the strange method of ignoring the abundant and not so glorious losses in that very same period. As far as I know, no other player enjoys such wonderful breaks. Itís as if the record, in the case of Hoad, were completely irrelevant. Visual evidence is also irrelevant because largely unavailable. All that remains is the hearsay. His comparison with other players, for example Federer, is made by selecting instances of Hoadís supposedly god-like level (as described by hearsay) and comparing them NOT with instances of Federer's similar level, which are widely available for viewing, but with his average level where defects may be spotted.

There is something evangelical about the Lobb mission. His faith is unwavering. He wants to spread the Word on Hoad. But at least the Christian apostles had had direct contact with the Master, they saw Him in His daily activities and miracles, and wrote detailed reports of them in the Gospels. Lobbís gospel is some interviews where Gonzalez and Laver were being gracious and perhaps a bit self-serving. Itís as if a Christian gospel had developed from some interview with Mathew and Mark, where they would say things like, Oh, yeah, Christ could on occasion perform the most spectacular miracles (but you know we beat him regularly in most miracle competitions throughout Galilee).

That doesnít sound to me like a very good gospel.

Very good post. But I must warn you: the consequences of such a post are inevitable: you are now officially a mindless Fedfan.

More seriously, I don't have enough knowledge on Hoad, but given the data available on him, it is very possible that he was mightily hyped for the reasons you mentioned. I believe it was more or less the same with Budge and Kramer. It might become the same with Safin in 50 years.

Players testimony are interesting, but there is really to many unknown variable to control why they say what they say. And we know in this forum that knowing each other bias is vital to understand each other advice. Laver, Gonzales or Kramer weren't free of bias.

Without a doubt the most disrespectful post to a great player that you can make. Nadal? Have you seen how he moves on that surface? Take away racket technology you still have a relentless gladiator getting every ball back. Not one of them players you mentioned, of those I have seen footage, is anywhere near the athlete Nadal is. You have zero credibility at this point, zero.

Forza, It's not disrespectful claiming that the old greats were not weaker than the current stars!